We all know that any suggestion that there is a streak of bias coursing through the BBC’s corridors is ludicrous, or so says the BBC’s top newshound, James Harding. However, should you happen to come across any vestigial bias lurking in the darkest corners of the BBC please feel free to list it here so that the BBC can immediately rectify the unfortunate lapse in standards…..a new open thread….
Perhaps I’m being too harsh, here, but can you remember what happened the last time parents cried and said they know nothing about family members buggering off to fight for ISIS? Footage emerged of them taking part in a violent Islamic extremist protest months earlier. Basically, we’ve heard this sob story before:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33156712
Maybe I’ll be proved wrong.
The BBC seem to have no problem portraying those who sod off to join ISIS as victims; some young impressionable innocents who are tricked into travelling thousands of miles to blow themselves up and so on. And I am sick and bloody tired of hearing this word ‘jihad’ when the words terrorist butchers should be used instead.
You’re like the rest of us Alex, as Mark Steyn said-
“I’m all Islamed out.”
Must say I do like the new liberal narrative-that those going on pilgrimage to Mecca are invariably “vulnerable and at risk”.
So-any chance of the BBC calling for banning the hajj then-and not allowing our mental cases and their families from going there without a “stiff`kit” from Wrighty or The House of Anthony Clare.
No doubt the BBC will not rest until they prevent hajj to Mecca-they make no apology, and if it saves but one family from going walkabout, then it`ll be worth the BBCs fearless campaign to come.
Talking of Mark Steyn, this is a very, very good article covering a lot of the subjects which cropped up on this site over the last few days.
http://www.steynonline.com/7005/the-new-minstrelsy
What did one multi millionaire Beeboid say to the other millionaire Beeboid? Self congratulatory and incestuious tosh!
Top Gear won’t be Top Gear without Clarkson, Hammond and May.
Last of the Summer Wine was never the same without Compo, Glegg and Foggy.
Sorry, I meant Clegg.
Changing the lead characters on a show rarely improves it, and more often ruins it.
There was a 1980s sitcom, “Bread”, about a Scouse benefit scrounging clan, where two of the lead characters were replaced with different actors, and the show was soon terminated.
Blamire was the original sidekick to Clegg and Compo played by Michael Bates (Ranji it Ain’t Half Hot Mum).
And from a purely economic perspective, the BBC are killing themselves. The BBC’s biggest overseas earner being fronted by Chris Evans? Really??? Kiss goodbye to the overseas markets.
BBC.
It is Marxist. Look at the definition:
“The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.”
..
This has been going on in Europe since 1789 . We were mostly free of it until the 1960s.
What went wrong? Who cares? It is time to fight back and drive them from power and influence.
In the culture war there can be no meeting of minds. Once you grasp that you are already on the way to being victorious.
Rule numbers one and two
Do not listen to them and never argue.
Dover Sentry
“It is Marxist. Look at the definition:”
Copied word for word from the universally respected global authority on marxist philosophy; urbandictionary.com
http://bit.ly/1Tsfxo1
ROTFLMAO!
dez
….and your point is?
Dez,
The poster used quote marks, so what is your point?
I think the point is that Dez has long given up on trying to defend the BBC.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/chris-evans-revealed-as-new-presenter-of-top-gear/ar-BBlemSF
To be honest I’d more or less stopped watching Top gear as it was pretty much the same thing every week i.e. ass about in cars that most of us couldn’t afford to insure let alone buy. This isn’t really going to tempt me back.
This cultural enrichment project is going great then. Obviously, on the bbbc news at ten its poor immigrants this, grieving parents that. I work as a man with a van so I get to meet different types of people every day. Guess what, popular opinion does not match the bbbc narrative, just like the election didn’t. I tell anyone who will listen not to pay for this drivel. Abolish the tellytax now
Evan Davis on Newsnight introducing an article about the EU Referendum saying that you could bring back the old joke about the Conservatives being revolting. Obviously an in house joke.
Yet another example of many since the election that have either had me shaking my head in wonder, or laughing out loud at the blatant bias our tax payer funded national broadcaster serves up as news reporting. I honestly believe we are looking at an organisation in its death throes that has completely lost its collective mind.
“…I honestly believe we are looking at an organisation in its death throes that has completely lost its collective mind.”
We can hope as much, but I very much fear that just as with other liberal fascist projects such as the EU and the CAGW scare, the BBC will not prove so easy to bring down. Progressive Marxists are a tenacious bunch; they will fight to keep their unearned privilege and employ every dirty trick in the book to protect their vested interests.
The BBC is utterly out of control, but then so is the EU and the climate change scam. Who can realistically bring an end to any of them?
Congratulations BBC on broadcasting an excellent new series.
I am, of course, referring to episodes 1 and 2 of Clangers. After 43 years they have returned and appear to be mercifully free from multicultural diversity and politically correct subliminal messages. Here they are, still living in a reassuringly pink, traditional family, where Mother Clanger does the washing and knits while Tiny Clanger, with her commendable love of music, plays tunes derived from traditional European harmony and rhythm.
I do hope they continue in this vein for the entire series: almost worth my licence fee … almost.
Clamgers back ? WooHoo !!!
Which channel ?
Why not on BBC1 prime time ? Say after whatever crap they do at 6 or 7pm – the audience would be huge !
…But did you know in true bBC tradition its creator Oliver Postgate was an out and out socialist, who like his father was a conscientious object in WW1, he in WW2, his father was a communist in the 1920’s, other family members Fabians.
Postgate was a fav at the bBC in the 60’s and 70s, making many children’s series.
Was there a message in them? Interesting reading here…
http://www.nextleft.org/2008/12/oliver-postgate-and-guild-socialist.html
Mr Natural, you do realise that Mother Clanger is probably knitting a hijab, and the Soup Dragon only serves halal soup.
comment of the day
The root cause of the migration problem is the inactivity and indecision of the EU.
Even Al Beeb reported it over 6 months ago. Nothing at all done, nothing at all.
Time to get out.
Pleas read ……………….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29799473
Pounce’s spot on observations at the beginning of this thread reminded me of a comment I posted 4 years back on The Editors blog. Contrary to what I’d thought for some time, I recently discovered that the full archives of that blog are, amazingly, still available, from 2006-2013:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/archives.html
The article I responded to, by Peter Horrocks, is a fascinating defence of the indefensible by a senior BBC hack attempting to justify the discovery of a BBC contact number in the phones and phone books of several terrorists in Afghanistan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/04/bbc_world_service_and_afghanistan.html
Here’s the comment:
BBC bias in favour of terrorists? Let’s see, in no particular order:
Inviting Iraqis and anyone else to report on coalition troop movements in Iraq and then claiming it was a bad phrase.
2IC Mark Byford claiming he would be immensely proud if the BBC interviewed the Taliban.
Mute on coalition successes in Iraq and Afghanistan while loudly trumpeting civilian deaths caused by the coalition.
Undisguised support for Hamas, including the accusation against Fatah on Hardtalk that it was selling the Palestinians out by negotiating with the US and Israel.
Frantic knee-jerk condemnation of the Israeli commandos who killed nine peace activists who were defending themselves aboard the Mavi Marmara with sticks.
Unqualified support for Hezbollah during the 2006 war with Israel.
Extraordinary obituary on Osama Bin Laden, as if the writer had to restrain himself or herself from coming out in full support of the late terrorist.
Mentioning the dreaded terrorist word once when the news broke of the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan and then quickly changing it to gunmen.
Calling the terrorists who massacred over a hundred people in Mumbai determined young men who had conducted an audacious attack.
Several years ago the BBC decided to strictly limit the use of the word terrorist. The guidelines stated that it should be used only to describe terrorists actions and never the groups that commit them, though it was apparently OK to use it when quoting others who used it. That soon fell away and the BBC proved its unprofessionalism and dishonesty by misquoting anyone who had rightly identified terrorists as terrorists. They became militants.
Today the dreaded T-word is rarely mentioned on the BBC. And even when the arch-terrorist met his just end, the writer of the obituary could only mention it at the very end of the piece:
To his supporters, Bin Laden was a fighter for freedom against the US and Israel and not, as he was to many in the West, a terrorist with the blood of thousands of people on his hands.
Evidently he wasn’t a terrorist to the BBC.
The Editors was always good value.
Can’t think why an interactive means to debate the broadcast-only posturings of market rate talents who seldom if ever responded, has become such a shadow of its original glory.
The Helen Boaden post and runs were always a treat.
Plus the modding quite light (skilled posters knowing how to navigate the House Rules?) and staying open for more than a few hours in the middle of the day.
Even the house contrarian was a different calibre.
I agree with your observations on The Editors.
This article by Peter Horrocks, in which he whinged over the un-PeeCee comments about the terrorist murder of Benazir Bhutto, attracted comments through most of January 2008.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/value_of_citizen_journalism.html
And a glance at the archives page I linked to above shows that in the early days The Editors had up to a 100 articles a month, which had dwindled to 1 a month by 2013.
Anyway, it’s a fascinating and rich resource for delving into BBC bias, with the comments as revealing as the articles.
Some Israelis say they prefer being interviewed by al Jazeera to the BBC. AJ’s biases are out in front and they are scrupulous in reporting exactly what was said, in full and without semantic and editing tricks changing meaning. Using militant when terrorist was said is a case in point.
At one time the BBC used the technique of indirect speech to avoid the ‘T’ word. Israel said that militants were responsible rather than Israel said, “Terrorists were responsible”. However they seem have dropped that obfuscation. When I checked the Israeli spokesman used the Hebrew word for terrorist not the word for militant.
Once I submitted an F.O.I. on what legal advice a BBC journalist received (as required by the Guidelines before interviewing criminals) before interviewing a Maoist group considered terrorist by the Indian government. Needless to say the BBC used the for the purposes of news excuse not to answer.
It would seem from this and other instances that the BBC considers its guidelines only apply in Britain, if at all, and outside Blighty not.
As the old joke goes:
It was the more moderate BBC staff who moved over to Al Jazeera.
Many a true word is said in jest.
BBc Breakfast
Continuing the tear soaked shocker of the “missing”12 a reporter in Bradford says nothing much for a couple of minutes. But does say one of the family is believed to have been fighting for “Islamic militants” for the last 2 years. Serious faces on the sofa as they show the two husbands “emotional ” press meeting. Louise asks about the position of the kids being out of school to the Nazir Afzal. They even have the pictures of the missing on the wall behind them during the discussion.
In your dreams, innit. Feck off.
If there’s one thing that tells us the BBC has lost the plot, it’s this: Chris Evans, Top Gear presenter elect, is going on the Victoria Derbyshire Show this morning.
‘Teachers who say their classrooms have given them cancer’ will have to make way this morning for the ginger whinger.
Obviously the BBC are having to pull out all the stops to launch their new man, but really, the VD Show?
It is a waiting room for the compo circus and clearing house for grievance.
Evans, Zoe Ball and Sara Cox all archetypal associates of Blair’s post 1997 dumbed down Britain.
All now held in high regard by our national broadcaster and omnipresent on its flagship radio station which has morphed into Radio 1 lite. All this drivel at great expense – ours!
…While the Blair years made millionaires of them all. Ever seen Cox’s beachfront home down in Brighton? Safely away from those nasty immigrants, hard to reach (you can walk beneath it on the beach itself, though), and doubtless worth a pretty penny or two.
Personally, I resent being forced by law to pay for the indulgences of these hypocrites.
Last January I was coming back from Thailand after a post-Christmas break and who should be sat in the plane but Jo Whiley and her extended brood (five of them, in total). My ticket alone had cost the best part of £1k, so God alone knows how much her flights had run to.
Doubtless she’s happy to earn the Air Miles, even as she endorses the BBC’s climate change bollox.
Forgot Whiley, she was another of the 90’s ‘down dumbers’
She was the ‘booker’ for Channel Fours The Word. In a program last week she proudly boasted that she booked the group (can’t remember their name) where the female lead singer dropped her trousers revealing all live on air.
L7 was the band’s name I believe.
It was indeed L7. Yea Jo Wiley who for some inexplicable reason gets labelled “A rock chic”. I think not. Back in the days I used to deliver post out to farms in N. Wales I had a fair amount of time to listen to the radio as the farms are obviously spread out. So I had the misfortune to listen to her show at lunchtimes on Radio 1 when I couldn’t find anything else on the airwaves. From what I recall it mainly consisted of her telling us how great she was and what bands she had seen.
They have not actually stated who the other presenters will be. I would not be at all surprised if they pick any of the following:
Claire Balding, Matt Baker or Sue Perkins.
They seem to be the favorite go to presenters for new BBC shows these days.
This says as much for how desperate the BBC are to push their much hyped VD show. However, since the viewing figures have been consistently less than Homes under the Hammer; I wouldn’t expect the amazing appearance of Mr Evans will make much of a difference. The only amazing thing about that programme is that it is still on the air.
Someone above mentioned a paper about “Japan the land without Muslims” well here it is .
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/0/
That’s the one! It reads even better a second time, thanks for posting the link.
So, who will be the two new co-presenters on Top Gear and is two enough?
There must be lots of ideal candidates but the chances of two white, straightish, able-bodied men are very slim indeed.
I would guess you could mix and match any of the following …
A non white person, a female, someone with some kind of disability or speech impediment, a ‘Mr..Humphries’ style gay person and Clare Balding.
Now let me make it clear any of the above may well be the very best for this no doubt highly paid job, but will it matter?
Evans only likes sycophants.
Not a fan of Top Gear, but imagine the next two presenters will each have to tick at least one of the following boxes: female, BAME, gay, disabled.
Actually, isn’t it now BBC policy that Clare Balding has to appear in every single programme? So that’s two boxes ticked…
BBC News Report
Muslims will only receive transplant organs from other Muslims?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33155326
“This is due to a lack of donors coming forward from a matching ethnic background”
Have I got this right?
The BBC article seems vague on this point. Why won’t they receive organ transplants from other religions?
(It seems that blood transfusions are ok).
But, muslims take up more blood for transfusion as they wait longer for a muslim organ, which may or may not appear.
Is this why blood stocks are low?
..
” 21% of the Birmingham population is Muslim”
“When I was having a transfusion, 25 of the 31 bays had Muslims in them ”
Answers some of your questions I think. Googling matching types for transplant does not however mention the need to come from your own kind to transplant.
What has ethnicity got to do with it. Last time I checked, anyone from any race could become a Muslim. So physical compatibility has nothing to do with the religion. This is purely anti-khuffir prejudice by Muslims.
Moslems and their supporters will claim that Islam is a race and that it is racist to offend it, as we see in our courts. It is also a religion, as we see in the Interfaith groups. It is a culture, studied as one in our schools and universities, and of course it is a victim as seen in our media. But also, when it suits, it is a bully and aggressor.
Geyza,
“This is purely anti-khuffir prejudice by Muslims”
You’re talking out of your un-transplanted arse.
Transplanted organs don’t have to be from someone from the same ethnicity; but there is a greater chance of finding a match if they are (there is more to it than just ‘blood type’).
It’s nothing to do with religion; the West Midlands Hospitals are simply using “Muslim” as short hand for people from Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
That’s where you are wrong, you knob, Dez. Sky News reported the same story and they interviewed a Muslim female who spoke to prospective transplant patients and possible donors. She said that she spent most of her time trying to convince these people that it wasn’t UN-ISLAMIC to donate blood and human tissue if it meant saving lives. So it seems there is a religious aspect to these problems. I’m sure the suggestion that they won’t accept blood and tissue from khuffirs has something to do with their problems.
Andy S,
“She said that she spent most of her time trying to convince these people that it wasn’t UN-ISLAMIC to donate blood and human tissue if it meant saving lives.”
That may be true, but it doesn’t have anything to do with supposed “anti-khuffir prejudice”.
Dez:
Do you spend a lot of time bumping into things? The trick is to open your eyes and see what is going on all around you.
Seems to have an unerring ability to dodge elephants in rooms, mind.
Also one shown by the odd corporation, coincidentally.
Genuine question – would ‘accepting’ blood or organs from infidels be ‘haram’?
During the 1970s and 80s it was possible to have discussions with muslim scholars over organ donation and a Saudi Commission supported donation and implantation of vital organs. The argument was that from birth the number of breaths one takes is determined by Allah, hence receiving vital organs would fulfill Allah’s strategy (so would refusing them, but we can leave that bit out). Brainstem death, so I determined, was acceptable to muslims as a condition for the harvesting of organs as irreversible apnoeic coma is regarded as the moment the soul leaves the body (with the last breath). Post mortem kidney donation was OK because you would not need to urinate in the Garden. Liver donation was iffy because there are tales that the alleged prophet’s uncle was slain by a heathen who ate his liver. What I am saying is that a few decades ago it was possible to have discussions with muslim scholars on these issues. But the hardening of the conservative standpoint (or whatever) was definitely assisted by left multicultists. Basically, the whackos hijacked the entire debate.
As for non believers, I cannot say. But I do recall during the Thatcher years how lefties produced organ donor cards saying ‘In the event of my death I do not want my organs to be given to a Tory’.
CCE,
“Genuine question – would ‘accepting’ blood or organs from infidels be ‘haram’?”
No.
thanks
“They made two pilots – one with me and one with Angus Deayton,” she said of the BBC1 show.
“I was told by the producers that they preferred my version, but the channel decided they couldn’t have a woman in charge.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sandi-toksvig-bbc-turned-me-down-as-have-i-got-news-for-you-host-because-i-am-a-woman-10322390.html
What do you reckon, did BBC producers think our Sandi might be too glamorous… too distractingly feminine for the viewers?
Woman in charge? Remind me who was PM in 1990, who was the Queen?
In any case, I think our Sandi didn’t understand the concept of the comedy panel show if she thinks the role of presenter is to be ‘in charge’. Perhaps her bossy school marmy attitude with her old fashioned BBC clipped tones wasn’t quite so funny as she thinks.
How about this scenario. Angus Deayton was the better presenter – but rather than tell her this the BBC fobbed her off with some PC schmooze. Perhaps they thought she might cry?
Has Sandi Toksvig ever done anything to justify her claim to being a ‘comedian’?
It seems extremely far-fetched to me. I tend to think of her having become famous for … well, for no discernible reason at all.
Agree completely about toksvig. Seems to me most of the “comic talent” on the bbbc are all cut cut from the same cloth, ie anti tory, anti royal, anti ukip, but mainly , anti funny.
She is as funny as an orphanage on fire IMHO.
I don’t tend to laugh with her but laugh AT her.
She must be one of the most smug, conceited people on the BBC and deeply, deeply unfunny.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/16/missing-bradford-sisters-ultra-conservative-muslim-family
“Missing Bradford sisters ‘are from ultraconservative Muslim family UH OH! … “Pashtuns are associated with a strict interpretation of Islam, such as adherence to gender segregation”
dragging young children one only 3 to Saud, to suffer the throwback brainwashing campaign of a Hajj!. and I thought women need male accompaniment in Saud, because of Islamic stricture? … particularly 3 of them … with 9 children?
The brother the Islamic mass murderer?
… So that’s “nothing to do with Islam” again, then?
these and other questions need quantifying
Hmmm, bad smell from the basement, again folks
or
BBC “Fears over Bradford family missing after Saudi pilgrimage”
and the Al BBC Bradfordistan News Conference, with Islamic spokesman. Islamic solicitor, probably Islamic police, Islamic intermediaries, and erm … no questions allowed.
Just watched the vid of the crying dads. Even by BBC standards this is poor acting. There must be better actors available in the Salford area, who could be shipped into the studios for a more convincing performance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33156561
They looked like “Mick Philpott” tears to me.
Indeed, only less believable than his.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/06/julian-knight-mp-its-time-for-fundamental-reform-at-the-bbc.html
This article by former BBC employee Julian Knight MP is worth a read.
Haven’t managed to read much of the thread so I hope the following hasn’t already been posted:
The Israeli Foreign Ministry posted this animation mocking the coverage of Gaza by ‘journalists:’
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/26799/Default.aspx
Scroll down a bit for the video.
Simply brilliant ! Only lacking a bbc voice,( that could be arranged?) and then it would be JonDon or the pillock from Cyncoed.
Yes, I was thinking it would have been better to have a BBC-type figure in there. Still, it’s great fun.
One has to ask how the hell Chris Evans ended back at the BBC after previously being dismissed and is now their ‘Golden Boy’
He was somehow re-employed by Radio 2 Controller Lesley Douglas, under who’s watch the Brand/Ross debacle took place. She walked from her £250k ‘job’ over it.
But now we find that even Douglas has also been accepted back at the BBC in a deal with her production company.
Incestuous lot the BBC and its kind. Never mind, its only money – OURS!
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/…
Apropos of the Bradford ISIS atrocity (but nothing, I think, to do with BBC bias), why is a lawyer involved and taking centre stage (and who’s paying his fees)? The fathers and other family members appear capable of communicating in English. Unless something’s happening about which we – the general public – are being kept ignorant (not an unreasonable suspicion) a legally trained minder is not required.
Seems to me that the people who require lawyers are those being fitted up to take the heat off “so called” Islam. Those responsible are, by the tone of the reportage (certainly the listening/viewing services of the BBC), the police, the security services and the “authorities” generally. According to this BBC report “Dr Mohammed Iqbal, president of Bradford’s Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, insisted the authorities and the intelligence services needed to come up with some answers” although other Moslem luminaries quoted considered this was “a Moslem problem”.
Whatever, although it’s a tear-jerker alright (and I feel sorry for the children caught up in this), given that this is the nth example of Moslem dysfunction, who cares? Selfish I know, but my sole concern is that the bomb-making/exploding section of the Moslem community is exported to and stays in Syria. Also It would be nice, occasionally, to hear someone on the BBC suggest that the problem might not be “innocent” Moslems being “radicalised” but Islam itself. There are loonies in all religions (and none) but it seems that Islam is uniquely prone to producing world-class nutters and murderers in significant numbers: IMHO this is not a random consequence: there’s a reason; and the common factor is Islam itself.
Does the BBC explore these matters? In one sense it does: hence the endless reporting on Moslem affairs including, for instance, the grotesque “celebration” of Mrs Obama’s visit to a Moslem school in the capital of England yesterday. Unfortunately the lens through which the BBC views and reports on Moslem affairs is grossly distorted. The reportage is almost always of Moslem “success” (despite all the disadvantages and prejudice that Moslems suffer) or Moslem victimisation by outfits like the EDL or exculpation for Moslem criminality. Perpetration of crimes by Moslems is, when not ignored, generally reported as by “Asian” criminals thus smearing other, non-Moslem, Asian communities. Until there is a genuine exploration for the bloodthirstyness and violence of Islam – here and everywhere Muslims reside in significant numbers – there will be no solution: or, at least, not a solution accceptable to non-Moslems.
Do you seriously expect the bbc which has built a huge edifice about the “delights” of Muslim invasion to spill the beans about the nasty “religion” ? Really?
Glorying in the millions now here and their alien lifestyle non integration, looking like Daleks, demand the host country change to accommodate them rather than the other way around ? What tell the truth about the need to rape little girls, cut their own children’s sexual parts, fight wars, to invade, change and control all countries as they come to them in their desire for world domination ? You’ll wait a long time then I suggest.
I like Daleks…….I prefer to think of them as walking letterboxes. Everything else was spot on , we have now retired to South of France (cheaper on our pension) and can only get Sky news so saves our sanity a little. We follow the Beeb news via their website and come on here for the truth. One other advantage to living here…..no Walking Letterboxes and very few scarves here in the South.
They’re headed your way from Italy !
The BBC has been positively drooling over Michelle Obama’s visit to a Tower Hamlets school.
Lot’s of pictures of happy, smiling girls in headscarfs – naturally all white boys are over-privileged.
“UK unemployment falls as wages rise.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33162403
Good news you might think? But not for the BBC still smarting from their defeat to the Tories at the General Election the PR and communications wing of Labour is having none of it wheeling out their statistical expert to pour scorn on the figures and piss on the Tories parade…
Different when Labour were in power…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6175273.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1169626.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7191245.stm
“All of Islam’s success has been based upon political submission, dualism and violence. The violence, pressure, arguments and demands are not going to stop because they have worked for 1400 years and are working better now than at any time in the past.”
Bill Warner, Center For The Study Of Political Islam.
http://www.politicalislam.com
New Top gear episode 1 =
Start feature Evans and Jo Brand meet Owen Jones to talk about communism and the modern car industry in China .
This week Red star in a reasonable priced car [explain to Evans Ferraris are not ‘reasonably priced ‘] this week Moan Chompsky will drive very slowly round the track while reciting the collected works of Marx while Der Stigmund purges the audience of non approved thoughts !.
the challenge= Evans Jo and Eddie millibar are each given £1million to buy a used Ferrari paint it white then deliver today’s copy of the Gurdion to BBC head quarters in rush hour traffic while getting as many anti austerity campiness types in the boot as possible to drop off at a riot in Westminster .
The news = where to get the best white paint for your Ferrari, buying a centrally heated hermetically sealed showroom for your Ferraris . best cheap car to buy so your can save up to pay your TV tax .
And finally a feature about how the UK military are all evil and ISISISISIS are really nice car fans who love driving fast [note cut away before car hits church!]
and on that carbomb shell !
There is an actual car you can buy called the Lexus IS.
Lethal acceleration apparently – it really goes like a bomb.
A bit like the Islamic State inflatable sex doll, very easy to use – as it blows itself up.
Exploding prayer mats, a great investment opportunity
Prophets will be going through the roof
Bin Laden – Have we been told the truth? Full on conspiracy wibble, a companion piece (read advert) for what the BBC would term a ‘so called’ documentary on BBC2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33152315
Bloody Americans killing our favourite Freedom Fighter…
Classic BBC spinning a story out of whatever they fancy by making it a question. Again.
Maybe the Yanks should pull a ‘purposes of’ exemption as the BBC does with everything and they may as well ask if Bin Laden is going to co-host Top Gear with Elvis.
‘I have been investigating al-Qaeda and Bin Laden for the BBC for nearly two decades’
Does BIJ know? As spinning out zero result for so long on expenses seems a sweeeeet deal.
And now we have… questions… claims…. ‘possibilities’… single sources (Yay… a Newsnight special)… deflections and SFA else of substance.
Like a fair chunk of BBC ‘reporting’ these days.
It is only after several paragraphs that you find people actually on record calling BS on the whole thing.
So, perfect to try and work up to a full BBC2 allegation-only programme then.
What a waste of two decades.
The bizarre deviant Evan Davis up to his old tricks again with a loaded agenda and very politely and firmly put in his place.
‘BBC to Livni: “Would You Describe Your Parents as Terrorists?”’
Credit to Israeli opposition politician Tzipi Livni for keeping her cool during an interview for BBC Newsnight. Evan Davis asks her a series of leading questions including this with reference to Livni’s parents who were members of the Irgun group fighting the British military in 1940’s Mandate Palestine.
http://honestreporting.com/bbc-to-livni-would-you-describe-your-parents-as-terrorists/
I have no time for Davis however this time he is correct, Irgun were terrorists responsible for a number of murders against the British authorities, the affair of the murdered Sergeants being particularly nasty. Their dead bodies did I seem to remember have their bowels removed and booby trap bombs placed inside, hoping to kill more British solders who cut the bodies down. So yes they were a nasty despicable bunch and they deserved to be shot themselves, if any are still alive I would like to see them in a British prison. So if the parents were a part of this group then they were terrorists themselves.
Sometimes we on this site bat for the Israelis too readily, democratic, yes. Multi faith, yes, play hard ball themselves with Muslim terrorists ,yes. But also hard ball with any who stand in their way. Both us and the Americans have felt their blows in the past. They are no angels, and do not play by any western liberal rules.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
Such are the facts, and any playing ‘numbers of wrongs’ tennis need to confront realities.
I would however question this: ‘we on this site bat for the Israelis’
That’s a pretty broad church. All-encompassing to a fault.
It’s interesting what in Beebworld constitutes ‘a different time’ in moving on quickly terms, and what moments of history are raw and open to be accessed on demand still.
‘Why is it only Jews and Israelis that can be described as terrorists in the eyes of the BBC and its reporters?’
Fair point. and BBC reluctance to even go near the term now for more favoured groups makes hauling it in as suits from the memory hole as here seems pretty special on the selectivity front.
Which is surely the actual point?
So according to you, terrorists are those who try to kill foreign soldiers to end an occupation that would endanger their lives.
Hmmmm – don’t think so.
Let’s recall that those Jews who were lucky enough to be freed from the Nazi concentration camps, and had seen half their numbers wiped out, and were hoping to start a new life in Israel were prevented from landing in Israel by the British troops and interned in more concentration camps in Cyprus.
The same British who were promising the Arabs that there would be too few Jews to fight them off when the Israeli state would be declared.
If I was a Jew there at the same time, I would have done whatever it took to get rid of the British occupation of a land that wasn’t theirs. Their life or mine.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A TERRORIST IS!
What do you think you would have done if you were a Jew there at the time?
The British had no intention to stay and occupy Palestine and many Jews did not fight the British.
I never said the British were planning to stay, nor that all the Jews were attacking them. The British were still doing their best to limit any more Jews arriving to defend the State once they pulled out.
So what do you think you would have done in the Jews place, especially after seeing how regimes could sacrifice them when it suited – and still are?
The British had every intention to stay. Where in that period did the British voluntarily abandon a colony? They were forced out except in those English majority areas, such as Canada and Australia where the native population was effectively wiped-out and subdued.
One could argue that Palestine was not a colony. It was a League of Nations (also United Nations) Mandate for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. However given that Britain worked so hard to stop that result and also, not coincidently, to stop any Arab counter claim, what evidence do you have that Britain intended to eventually leave?
Whether they were planning to leave or stay we can only conjecture now but it isn’t really the point here. What is evident is that what the British were doing was threatening the survival of those Jews who had to defend their new State. I know you well enough Deegee to know you agree with this.
Which is why the label of terrorist here is absurd in light of the facts, and more so when it is against soldiers and not civilians.
Shows the BBC has a hypocritical personal agenda here that belies all of their own definitions, not that this surprises any of us.
While I believe the Irgun can correctly be labelled terrorist the execution of the two uniformed soldiers was not an act of terrorism but an act of war. The Jewish underground group Irgun kidnapped two British Army Intelligence Corps NCOs, Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice, and threatened to kill them if the death sentences passed on three Irgun members: Avshalom Haviv, Meir Nakar, and Yaakov Weiss, were carried out. The three had been captured by the British during the Acre Prison break, tried, and convicted on charges of illegal possession of arms, and with ‘intent to kill or cause other harm to a large number of people’.
When the three men were executed by hanging, the Irgun killed the two sergeants and hung their booby-trapped bodies in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya. After hearing of the deaths some British troops and policemen attacked Jews in Tel Aviv, killing five and injuring others.
If the sergeants’ deaths, which could have been avoided by the British commuting the death sentences of the Irgun members were terrorism what was the hanging of the Jews? What was the revenge killing of Jews who had nothing to do with the Irgun?
This was the atmosphere at the time. The Irgun saw tit-for-tat as a legitimate tactic in the war they were fighting.
Given that the BBC practically turns somersaults to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorist’ because because terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones. Davis is practically asking Livni to define a word that the BBC refuses to use unless someone else says it first. No reprimand for Davis?
The relevant Editorial Guideline states:
Use of Language
11.4.5 We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements. We try to avoid the use of the term “terrorist” without attribution. When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent”, and “militant”. We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
Even then there are numerous instances where the BBC uses a euphemism, notably ‘militant’ when others say ‘terrorist’.
MSN are running a story that one of the missing 12 has made contact. Of interest is this “The contact came as well-informed sources in Bradford told the Guardian that the women are understood to have been stopped from leaving the UK at least once before they severed contact with their families last week”
he BBc website omits this allegation in the story however.
Is it just me or does the BBC seem to be using only pictures of white people in reports on grooming? Petrified of upsetting a certain ‘community’ perhaps?
Yet they are very adept at using quotas to get black/ brown/yellow/ purple with blue dots skin owners into as many programmes as possible and to hell with any historical accuracy. Done the news dept not use the same supplier of actors as the rest of the bbc ?
No, it’s not just you, it’s the same with the food banks (whatever happened to them), they only ever show white families using them, and some of them are middle class!
6 news still peddling the same non story garbage on the ‘missing family’ being in Syria. Why are they missing? We know where they are, they went of their own free will, as they are entitled to do, so how exactly are they missing? Utter shite again. WE DON’T GIVE A F***!!!
They are doing a piece on the ‘far right’ brainwashing kids to hate muslims? I think the bbc are doing a pretty good job of that themselves.
Of course the lefties don’t do any brainwashing do they, i mean, they’d never take white kids to a mosque and force them to accept islam by dressing up in muslim garb would they?
Child abuse…the exposure of the jimmy savile scandal has given kids the strength to come forward…Hoorah to the bbc for helping kids to be abused…sorry…to come out…I mean, to admit that they have been abused, what would we do without the bbc.
In the C4 documentary about race, presented by Trevor Phillips, it was revealed that: ” censors […], withdrew a timely 2008 film for schools showing a twentysomething South Asian groomer luring white teenage girls into a fancy car and a life of degradation. That was way too realistic, unfortunately, so a second film was made where the groomer was a white teenager. This bore no resemblance to any present danger to any girl ever, but at least it wasn’t offending someone’s culture, except possibly white people.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11479761/We-must-listen-to-Trevor-Phillips-and-his-inconvenient-truths-about-race.html
So, in answer to your question, it is highly probable that the BBC only uses pictures of white people in reports on grooming.
Just in case you need to Edgukate yourself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32979297
Sweet jesus, read that and then look at the features list on the right, the bbc is on the verge of madness and are in overdrive when it comes to force feeding people to the ways of the far left cranks.
Just seen the piece on the ‘far right’, apparently there are places in the UK that a muslim woman was scared to go because of white intimidation (it’s all our fault), probably not most of London, Luton, much of the Midlands, Glodwick (Oldham), parts of Rochdale, the caliphate of Bradfordistan, many other parts of Yorkshire, etc,etc. Just try walking around as a white person.
“Yorkshire” is a big place; much of it, as yet, uninfected by the votaries of the RoP.
Lancashire is a big place also, but, like those TV captions on WWII history programmes where the Nazi red tide slowly sweeps across Europe, so nazislam is doing the same to all of our counties, cities and towns.
They do seem to have an aversion to the countryside though Glen; and hard work – have you noticed how they are virtually always in “soft” jobs, sat on their arses in a corner shop, driving a taxi, in a petrol station, on a market stall, in a fast food dump or some fetid curry house. Usually in predominantly cash orientated businesses, those with plenty of scope for fiddling their VAT and income tax; oh and for the easier laundering of all that money derived from importing / dealing drugs and prostituting female kaffirs. Nice folk.
Al Shubtill,
“They aren’t used to hard work, nor do they like it… They leave production to the workers and peasants of the host nation. They are a race lacking farmers or workers, a race of parasites. They represent craftiness and subterranean destruction… responsible for 34% of the drugs trade and prostitution, 98%.”
‘Der ewige Jude’ (1940)
Dez,
Rather worrying that your instant reaction to the description was to post a comment which is taken from an anti-Semitic Nazi piece of garbage.
Shows up your own prejudices does it not? that the first group of people you think of are Jews.
Al, I remember years ago a friend using a local petrol station run by the the bbc’s favourite people, he paid by card and had it scammed not long afterwards, the station was closed down shortly after that.
I myself witnessed a holier than thou ‘asian’ taxi driver getting fruity with a prostitute in his car, I was on nights in the back of a railway van, I jumped out of the van to stretch my legs right next to his car, he shat himself! But they don’t gamble, drink or use prostitutes..honest.
I was also in a shop in rochdale (also known as shithole) many moons ago when I was a naive youth willing to give anyone a chance when a lad asked the ‘asian’ owner to change a pound for the phone box, the owner gave him 80p back? The lad got his pound back and I walked out and never went there again, two customers lost for 20p?? They just can’t help themselves. I avoid their businesses.
As for the countryside, there are a few country parks in the area where I live that are frequented by pakistani families, they are no go areas for whites, particularly at night, Alexandra park, oldham, is one of them, a young white lad nearly got beaten to death around there last week yet the local news was full of four young white girls who verbally abused an ‘asian’ couple on a tram.
The bbc seem to think that hatred of the muslims/pakis is a recent thing, it has been building for years, especially by those who have known about the likes of Rotherham for a long time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32979297
In the name of the Lord what was that article even about???? It beggars belief that somebody is being paid money (and good money at that I bet) to produce such utter nonsense.
The crazed output of self serving leftism the BBC has been on since they lost the election is going into overdrive. Time for Mr Whittingdale to put the break on.
18:00 The BBc cheerleader for it’s the Police who are at fault with the missing 12. Obviously in the BBcs mind the most important news story of the day. First the BBc tells us they were stopped before and questioned for so long they missed their flight next they are commenting why were they allowed to go when they were stopped before. Imagine what would happen if they stopped every member of the cult leaving the country
In their own twisted little way the BBc tries to throw blame to the “Exteme right wing” recruiting children and teenagers. Some mickey mouse group I’ve never heard of. A victim tells the presenter, with her identity hidden , feels there are no go areas. Lol really
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33167441
Sill no evidence of rape, beheadings or suicide bombings. But obviously we all need to walk in fear at the massive show of force . At least they managed to get the flag the right way up.
“According to Prof Feldman, they are trying to appeal to a generation whose view of Muslims has been distorted by events in the news”. So that would be rape, murders, beheading & suicide bombings then would it?
‘Children are shown taking part in day trips to various beauty spots’
The horror. At least no heads on show… I mean in the BBC-captioned, daintily-redacted picture.
They see to have been more circumspect with illustrating other parent/offspring outings:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28736345
Just hope the many ‘feared for’ families don’t present picture eds any similar dilemmas again.
Tonight Radio 4 – The Moral Maze – Victim Culture.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell identified the seductive lure of victimhood nearly 80 years ago in his essay “The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed”. Rachel Dolezal is the latest example of today’s powerful incentive for individuals to present themselves as victims. She posed as an African-American and victim of racism; even became the president of the Washington branch of The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. Rather inconveniently it turned out she’s 100% white. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too hard on her. You could argue that she’s a genuine victim of not just modern culture, but government policy on both sides of the Atlantic. A study by a British criminologist claims recognised victim groups that receive legal protection now make up 73% of the population. Groups that have been politically and legally recognised as victims are often keen to use their power, especially via social media, to silence those who offend or upset them as Nobel Prize winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt discovered to his cost. Irony is no defence against a Twitter storm over sexism. He’s just the latest victim to stumble unwittingly in to a minefield of emotional, racial, sexual, and psychological grievance. Recognising and protecting victims is clearly a moral good. Would anyone really argue that our society was a better place when casual racism and sexism were the norm? But is the growing list of victims and offence and harms doing lasting harm to our liberal culture? Not making us more civilised, but fuelling division and resentment, making it harder to identify and help true victims? Or are these the same kind of arguments that we’ve heard throughout history as the powerful try to crush the weak? Trigger alert! The morality of victimhood, the Moral Maze.
Burke says that “Obviously ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ are repugnant”. I disagree. I have no idea what ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ are, and neither does anyone else, certainly not Burke and not the BBC who subscribe to the insane McPherson view that ‘racism’ is what ever the victim perceives it to be.
I take issue with Burke who has clearly made a ‘racist’ statement as I perceive it to be so – now can we please have him sacked?
Just noticed that there is a special Newsnight on BBC2 at 7-8pm tonight, subject: the Labour leadership candidates. Discussion, debate…er, hang on a minute, debate between one Labourite and another, plus the BBC view, no doubt. This programme hasn’t even started, but obviously it will be politically one-sided, with plenty of anti-Tory (or in BBC-speak “impartial”) rhetoric. So will there be a selection of friendly Conservative, Lib Dem and UKIP voices to add balance during this hour of twaddle? Not holding my breath, are you?
The sad thing is, there is absolutely no point in sending in a complaint to the BBC as they simply won’t be able to get their minds around this basic point. And from now on, will all other parties be allowed their Newsnight specials during peak viewing times to stroke their own egos and tell us how wonderful they are and how much they CARE?
The only up-side is that the BBC has clearly learned none of the lessons they go on and on about, and still have little understanding that this festival of Leftism is likely to have the opposite effect to what they imagine…Yay, Yvette Cooper, can’t wait to see and hear her again!!!
I can remember the programme, after liebour’s third election win under BLiar, on how to get the tories back on track so that they can be voted back in…or was it another diatribe on Thatcher I watched, or a report on all the champagne the bbc drank after the win. More proof of the biased bbc.
Vote Corbyn 🙂
I’m just watching it. Andy Burnham gets a pop in about the Tories whenever he can – he’s unstoppable! The best audience response is to Corbyn, and silence greets Mary Creagh’s rather sensible views (oh, the horror, she thinks a Govt should balance the books and that only a strong economy can provide all the state services that otherwise grow on trees). I think we understand where most of the audience is coming from.
AND…blimey, I have just cottoned on that this is only the first of the Labour debates the BBC has planned! Four months of hustings – how many of these can they get into the schedules?! Go Corbyn…
Correction. Sorry not Mary C. It’s Liz Kendall who is on.
Dee,
“So will there be a selection of friendly Conservative, Lib Dem and UKIP voices to add balance during this hour of twaddle? Not holding my breath, are you?”
Were you similarly outraged in 2001?
Newsnight Conservative Leadership debate
Or 2005?
Conservative Candidates debate (Question Time)
Or is it only recently that you stopped holding your breath?
Thank you. It’s good to know that someone from the BBC is reading this. As a matter of interest, can you tell me whether these programmes were also on at 7-8pm, and whether there were a series of debates, or were they just one-offs?
BBC News Hysteria 18 17pm
Special report prime time evening news
Far Right Far Right “grooming” and Muslims are the …. “victims”
On to (identity hidden) Muslim woman whose been the target
of some verbal abuse from children as young as 9, and has some times, “felt … uncomfortable”
Equivalence pushing Al BBC?, trumpeting that ALL extremism is now to be monitored?,
The percentages on that? anybody? BBC?
erm … moving swiftly on
“The number of recorded sexual offences against children in England and Wales has risen by a third, the NSPCC says.
There were 31,000 offences recorded in the year up to April 2014, up 8,500 on the previous year”
Anything to do with organised Islamic child gang rape on an “industrial scale”, the possible “one million victims”
considered “the norm” in towns and cities the length and breadth of the country? covered up by both said community and law enforcement?
Or a few despicable perv disc jockeys?
Anyway … put that out of your mind entirely
BBC Missing Bradford family: Fathers ‘distraught’ over fears children are in Syria
BBC Fears for Wives and children
BBC Syria fears over Bradford family missing after Saudi pilgrimage
BBC Prevent strategy: Is it failing to stop radicalisation?
BBC “I miss you please come home”
BBC Bradford fathers ‘distraught and worried’
BBC Fathers plea for missing families to return
etc, etc
NSPCC exec pay. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/organisation-structure/how-your-money-is-spent/executive-pay/
Don’t remember NSPCC shouting about the “man of Asian origin” rape gangs a few years ago when those of us who were, were just being wacist.
I remember listening to one of the top men at the NSPCC on the Jeremy Vine show, discussing the preponderance of Muslim perpetrators in these child rape gang cases. This was just after the sickening Oxford case had concluded at the Old Bailey; I recall him blaming “the economy”, even Vine was left speechless.
I saved the recording of that show here. It’s also worth listening to the Oxford Imam, Dr. Taj Hargay who also appeared on that show and was saying the ‘the authorities needed to call a spade a spade and stop pussyfooting around in relation to these gangs’.
Dr. Taj should have been head of the RSPCC, or the police for that matter.
The Today team was once again confused and perplexed about a shocking new social malaise in “modern” Britain – Nigerians trafficked from Nigeria to be domestic slaves and forced labourers in Britain. The expert on human trafficking is asked “Who could possibly be using slave labour in “modern” Britain ?”. The Nigerian community. How puzzling. Our expert also states that our Pakistani, Roumanian and Bulgarian communities also indulge. How can this be? The Today team is also ALWAYS puzzled as to why members of our Muslim communities go to Syria to support ISIS.
However, once you realize that the phrase “our x community” means “those x who have rejected the culture of the indigenous population and occupy areas of the UK that will forever be lost to Western civilization”, there is no reason for bamboozlement. The Today team have forgotten why the BBC and the usual suspects introduced the euphemism “our x community”. “our” to obscure the fact that these colonies will never be “of us” because they don’t want to be and “community” to suggest cohesion and lack of threat to the indigenous population, a community like any other. In fact, the only real communality is with x in their country of origin. This is why muslims in Britain are so fascinated by ISIS . Muslims in Syria, Pakistan etc. are enthralled by ISIS because it is the fulfilment of their religious aspirations. The BBC seem to think that by calling Muslims in Britain British Muslims they will simply, as if by magic, cause them to forget their roots and true allegiance and adopt “British values”, a meaningless phrase as cultural norms are passed on by tradition and immersion rather than by abstract moral decisions This is why Prevent and deradicalisation programmes are resisted and dismissed as police spying, harassment etc. To be deradicalised is to reject fundamental. tenets of the faith and to accept assimilation.
Exactly right. When you have a ghetto of Pakistanis, Somalis, Nigerians etc etc in a British town or city, then you have to accept that, de facto, that area has seceded from Britain. It is a little bit of Pakistan, Somalia or Nigeria, only with access to British social security benefits and the NHS. We do not expect them to assimilate or accept our ways, so they do not. We do hand them out all our social benefits, so they take them. Who is the fool in all this? Not them.
There’s a large Italian community in my town which is concentrated in one area. Do they fit in to your ludicrous idea of secession, or is it only people with non-white skins who face the attention of your grubby little belief system?
Scott:
I’m not sure, do the Italians practise female genital mutilation, slavery and gang rape of local girls? Do let me know.
Such broad brushstrokes! Tell me, are all the people in your community rude, arrogant, ignorant, bigots? Should we tar them all on the basis of your behaviour?
I’ll tell you what Scott, why don’t you wrap yourself up in your rainbow flag and go for a walk in one of our Muslim areas, maybe around the time for Friday prayers. Have a word with the locals about gay rights and equal marriage. Let me know how you get on.
I grew up in a town with a large Italian community. Their women wore black from head to foot for months on end in response to news of deaths of family members back in Italy. There were many other differences in culture too. Guess what? We were not prosecuted for criticising their dress, advising young women that it was not compulsory. Differences were sorted out without thugs from outfits like the UAF interfering or with some Council for Maintaining the Italian Way of Life running to the government for legislation. And they did not rape our children or bomb us, even though a few years earlier our soldiers had bombed the shit out of Mussolini.
Top Gear.
As predicted. There will be a female co-host.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33162666
They haven’t chosen a female. But there WILL be a female.
..
My money’s on Suzi Perry, I reckon they will link Top Gear and F1, Evans is no stranger to F1 races, prominent, Coulthard possibly as well.
Perry was prominent in the TFI audience last Friday.
No, it will be Dame “Suzi”Leather.
It’s the only grace and favour job she hasn’t had yet.
How about Eddie Izzard – that would tick a few boxes
Please God, don’t let it be Clare bloody Balding!
It will be Clarkson after the BBC executives have ripped his tackle off – and made him black up.
If Clarkson says he “identifies as a woman” then, on the Bruce Jenner precedent, he is one. No need to lose the meat & two veg. Thinking that a woman can’t have a cock & balls is so last century.
As convolutions and spin goes, that whole ‘report’ is a treat.
Also open to oh, sorry… just clicked as I write this…
FIRST:
1. Posted by flipmode
8 hours ago
Please keep this HYS open, and allow the license payers to say what they think.
No point in opening an HYS if not
Well, you tried, mate….
LAST:
1037. Posted by Severian
3 hours ago (what’s that? Five hours… in the middle of the day?)
I assume that the third presenter will be a black (preferably gay) male, so the BBC can tick some more boxes on their politically correct scorecard. Ginger – check. Female – check. Gay – check. Black – check. Irritatingly annoying – check.
Why couldn’t they have picked the lead presenter based on ability – Suzi Perry was a much more obvious choice than Evans.
Highest and lowest ratings a hoot.
No wonder they shut it down PDQ. Again.
“The politicians of western democracies have spent 30 years facilitating Muslim groups, encouraging groups of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to propound an ideology that seeks to destroy the very countries which had given them the privilege of citizenship.”
Mark Durie, ‘The Third Choice.’
I think a BBC – “victim” narrative offensive might be on the cards
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11677409/Muslims-most-associated-with-terrorism-poll-reveals.html
“The British public associate Muslims with terrorism more than any other issue, a survey has revealed.
“Extremist” and “misogynistic” were also phrases most likely to be linked to the religion by Britons, according to the poll. ”
“Meanwhile, 47pcent said the UK should not provide refuge to people fleeing Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. Islamic Relief said the results showed a “dramatic hardening of views” towards refugees.
Jehangir Malik, the UK director of Islamic Relief, which commissioned the research, said: “The results of this poll are extremely worrying because they show that public attitudes towards Muslims are hugely negative and attitudes towards refugees have hardened significantly.
“It’s time we celebrated the role British Muslims play as part of the solution”
A question for the BBC … did the word “victims” come anywhere, re British Muslims in that poll?
“The results of this poll are extremely worrying because they show that public attitudes towards Muslims are hugely negative and attitudes towards refugees have hardened significantly.”
The public attitudes towards Hindus and Sikhs don’t appear to be at all negative – doesn’t he wonder why that may be? Nothing to do with Islam as usual presumably.
Good to read one senior Muslim representative with some common sense.
We Muslims MUST stop blaming others for the way our young are radicalised, writes chairman of the Muslim Forum MANZOOR MOGHAL
Muslims are allowed by the Koran to appear to ‘side’ with the kafur if it justifies the ends.
Sorry, but the author in my opinion is playing the terrorist’s long game. His article helps convince the kafur that moslems will sort out their own mess and can be trusted.
No. Moslem advances will continue, both politically and militarily.
..
I’m familiar with taqqiya, but I don’t think that’s what he’s trying to do here.
Certainly I didn’t feel he was trying to convince the reader that Muslims would sort all this out, just what was needed to better fit into
oura civilised society.Personally I think those raised with Islamic fundamentals are more likely to be the psychopaths we see than to be questioning their own mental stature.
They’re not a lot different than the BBC types who use propaganda and the power of their medium to enforce their thoughts.
Both a poorly developed mentality given the means to enforce their will. Rather than debate – they shut opponents up.
The New Statesman have this interview with the impressive Labour MP Kate Hoey, is it any wonder the BBC have Diane Fatbot and Owen Jones on speed dial and not Kate?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/kate-hoey-labour-has-become-extremely-unpatriotic-party
It’s getting boring now almost 10 minutes of the 22:00 news devoted to the missing 12. Cut to reporter at the Turkish / Syrian border. Cut back to the studio and the BBc security expert who waffles and speculates.
The BBC better be careful. It risks becoming a laughing stock round the world.
Sacking the current bunch of commentators and journalists would be an idea.
Out of touch and out of time.
Could the actors playing the role of the crying dads in the Bradford 12 series be found a place in the revised version of Top Gear? All the BBC news in one category.
The BBC news stories led this morning on the rise in child abuse-as measured by the vested interests and grievance cheridee chugger hustlers of the NSPCC.
But who else?
And of course, no-one there to argue anything other…as opposed to EU Referenda, when there is ALWAYS someone to back the EU point of view.
But I digress….child abuse is rising, unacceptable, wrong-need more convictions, less connivance and tolerance for this kind of thing etc, etc.
But-one hour later we get a cringing obsequious interview by Sarah Montague of Jimmy Page…and I get back from work to hear that Simon Mayo will be interviewing Bill Wyman sometime after six.
Err….just as well these two still coin it in, and are not dependent on reruns of 70s sitcoms or a need to appear in Great Yarmouth panto anytime soon.
Stray Cat Blues anyone?…or are we Sick Again?
BBC News Report
Muslims will only receive transplant organs from other Muslims?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33155326
“This is due to a lack of donors coming forward from a matching ethnic background”
If Christians refused organ transplants from muslims as a matter of religion, how would the BBC react to that?
Muslims according to the BBC can set their own parameters and be ok.
..
I’m sure I read ,years ago, that the NHS would consider organ donor cards that expressed an ethnic or religious preference as void
Interesting snippet from the BBC article:
“Although many voiced support for organ donations, one senior cleric – from the Council for Islamic Ideology – was concerned about whether the bodies of Muslims who were raised from the dead on judgement day would be affected if they were not whole”. Makes you wonder what the future holds for all those suicide bombers then. Now THAT would be poetic justice. Perhaps there would be just enough among the pieces to satisfy the 72 virgins lol
No problem surely. The organ would go to the next one on the list.
Why should someone who rejected an organ (because of the donor) keep their place? Somehow I doubt there would be many in that category. Some potential recipients wait years — some die before a suitable donor is found.
Burham says: “Party Comes first”:
Brilliant comment from OLD BOSS, NEW BOSS MEH on Guido:
Of course Party comes first. That’s why 1400 children were ignored in Rotherham, 1200 died at Mid Staffs and Lord Janner was allowed to fiddle all those kids. Labour comes first, Justice comes second.
Abuse cases are increasing, abuse crimes are increasing?
Muslim Paedo gangs are still at large and active
The BBC news hounds are wetting themselves with excitement tonight as they breathlessly inform me that they have discovered that the Muslim family had tried to leave the uk before and the police stopped them. Gleefully they then say that this raises the question why they were not stopped this time…..and the smell of police negligence is left to permeate our senses.
Am I supposed to give a toss BBC, try to get your stupid heads round this for Christ’s sake; I don’t and I am sick to the back teeth of your Muslim victim crap.
Why on earth would you want to stop any of them going?
What duty of care do the authorities owe to stop them?
The F.O. can advise that certain countries are unsafe to travel to, but surely after that it’s up to the individual if they still decide to go.
I wonder on what basis you could stop anyone travelling from say Manchester to Saudi Arabia ? It is supposed to be a ‘friendly’ country, it’s airliners come and go. I would imagine if the police refused them the right to travel without any firm evidence of intent to do harm to others that they would have a dozen lawyers ready and willing to take on the police in court and win a handsome settlement.
Exactly. There would have been a shitstorm of epic proportions if the police had tried to stop Muslims going on a pilgrimage to Medina.
WATERLOO 200 !
WATERLOO 200
Vote here – UKIP
and here – https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Is it possible that the Panorama programme about drugs in athletics could inadvertently bring down a BBC poster boy? I do hope not.
Apparently he missed two drugs tests before the London Olympics. But we can all do that. Jury still out on this one, after all, we have all missed the front door bell haven’t we?
I don’t dislike the guy, but I do hope so.
I hated the fawning bBC adulation him during the Olympics and their endless attempts of Anglicising him. He wasn’t born here, neither were his patents and he doesn’t train here = NOT British, simple!
Thankfully not all of us buy the multicultural wet dream of the bBC when further down the line and more often than not these ‘Golden Boys’ are not what they might seem, its inheirant…
Conviently whist the bBC endlessly promote their good side, we never hear the bad side….